Woman's boobs posted in /r/onoff. Owner of said boobs shows up, saying she did not authorized them to be posted here, only in /r/gonewild. Replies containing phrases like "Newsflash sweetheart" ensues. Oh, um, NSFW, if that isn't obvious. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
31 ups - 9 downs = 22 votes
83 comments submitted at 20:28:28 on Feb 18, 2014 by bluemayhem
It's interesting that she was bothered enough by the cross-post to comment on it, but has yet to take OP up on his offer to delete the thread. Weird.
Once posted to reddit, you lose of control of your content and how it's used.
http://i.imgur.com/hndBvtS.jpg
I love those pics. First time I've seen this version.
Cus I made it just now.
I made this.
You made this?
http://i.imgur.com/s3PV6jA.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7uLf4eY.jpg
Maybe, but if someone personally comes in to request that their content--especially content of such a personal nature--be removed, that should be respected. It's kind of gross that the mod just brushed her off like that.
The content broke no rules. Neither the subreddits nor Reddits rules.
> It's kind of gross that the mod just brushed her off like that.
As they should have.
TIL that Reddit rules set the standard for what is or is not shitty behavior.
For some people, Reddit is everything.
My name is reddit for we are many(nerds)
I never said it wasn't shitty.
Then I will: It wasn't shitty.
yeah, it was. grow up.
You realize that just because something isn't against the rules doesn't necessarily mean that it's appropriate or in good taste, right?
I could sneeze on people in public and defend myself by saying it isn't illegal to be a rude jackass, which it isn't, but still. Be a fucking person.
I followed up with "I never said it wasn't shitty."
It was shitty, but that's not what I was speaking to.
What were you speaking to, then? Because the person you replied to never said it was against the rules, just that it would be nice to respect the poster's wishes.
Depending how on where you live if you do it intentionally it would be assault with bodily fluids and illegal.
Not only that, the mod was really nasty about it.
>You posted your images on a public image host on a public website. I'm not quite sure you understand how the internet works.
Bolding mine.
I am not saying that mods are always even-handed and calm, but usually they at least try in most subs, right? This was downright dickish. It called her out as being stupid. It was totally unnecessary to add that bit of insult to injury. Yuck, what a meanie!
Yes, she needs to be told straight up that she lost control of that image the second she posted it online. You can do that without being a shithead, mr. mod.
>really nasty
>>I'm not quite sure you understand how the internet works.
I'm not quite sure you understand how being really nasty works
Well, it's subjective, isn't it? I think, if you read it in context, it comes across as very cold and nasty. Like a really mean-spirited way to talk to her. But text is tricky like that--one person's nasty is someone else's meh.
I know right. It is not as if the mod said "Listen you stupid cunt we the moderation of on off have saved this pic and will repost it weekly linking your username for all eternity so go fuck yourself."
That would be really nasty.
Under copyright, the owner has every right to make that request and have it honored. Of course in practice it's often not followed because people aren't familiar and/or are idiots like the mod in that situation.
If I were that mod I'd take it down because of that concern (assuming I believe its ownership) and I think the admins should enforce that as a CYA (cover your ass) measure since it could come back to haunt them if they allow mods to do that.
How naive do you have to be to post a naked picture on the internet and expect it not to appear anywhere else on the internet, let alone a different place on the same website. People on the internet are assholes, but once you release something into the public domain, you have given up your control over it, I thought they taught this kind of stuff in middle school.
I doubt she expected those pictures not to appear anywhere else, but she does have the wherewithal to turn up in a thread based on a picture of her breasts & kindly ask it to be removed. No one's obliged to do so. It seems her main error is to expect some human decency from someone who's been asked kindly to not post a picture of her body.
> kindly ask it to be removed.
>someone who's been asked kindly to not post a picture of her body.
She didn't ask for that
Also, the person who posted the thread offered to delete it if she did want that
You're right. But it's pretty heavily implied by
> I did NOT allow this to be posted here.
So when you said "kindly asked", what you meant was "may have implied, but actually, did not ask"
No, when I said "kindly asked", I had forgotten her words having read through the thread before posting here. I was wrong.
Fair enough then. We've all done that, I'll get off your nuts about it.
Her comment >I did NOT allow these to be posted here
makes it sound like she thinks she is entitled to not have her pictures cross posted. i don't understand posting naked pictures of yourself to the internet, but if you're going to do it, at least understand the basic consequences of doing so, once you release something into a public forum, you no longer own it.
> Her comment
>> I did NOT allow these to be posted here
> makes it sound like she thinks she is entitled to not have her pictures cross posted.
No, it makes her seem entitled to pass comment on the use of her own pictures, to which she is perfectly entitled.
> i don't understand posting aced pictures of yourself to the internet, but if you're going to do it, at least understand the basic consequences of doing so, once you release something into a public forum, you no longer own it.
No one's debating this. But the reaction of people in that thread is undeniably shitty. If someone implies that they're not happy with you sharing a picture of their breasts, the response shouldn't be to laugh at the person who shared content that you enjoy with you & point out that you don't technically have to do what she says. We're civilised human beings. You do other things for people because you have some modicum of empathy, not just when someone forces you to do it.
Yes but as a third party who doesn't browse /r/gonewild, I find it hilarious that this person thinks the kind of people who would cross post her naked pictures are also the kind of people who would care that she objected to. it.
>taught this in middle school.
Fuck I'm getting old.
My God, I want to smash in the face of the assclown using the term "White Knights".
Sure, she's naive to think she has any say over a pic on the internet, but dag sarnit if it doesn't ruffle my feathers when jerks bandy about that term as if anyone who has a differing opinion than he is some 'White Knight".
/switches to decaf
also, nice tits, lady! Thank for postin them on the innertubes!
> dag sarnit if it doesn't ruffle my feathers when jerks bandy about that term
You've been watching Leave it to Beaver reruns, haven't you?
"White Knight" is a derogatory term for people who object to you being a dick.
Sort of. It's definitely mis-used in that way a lot lately, but originally it was meant as a derogatory term for someone who feigns the high road in an effort to make points with the ladies.
But here it's used to malign anyone who doesn't share their undying hatred of women, which annoys me.
Given enough time (I'd say about a week), Reddit will turn anything into a thought terminating cliche without worthwhile meaning.
I am pretty sure it originally comes from like King Arthur or whatevs, and then it became a term on Wall Street for a company that could come in during a hostile takeover of your company and help you by buying out enough stock so the hostile company can't get your company.
...and yeah, now it means what you said.
They were quite nice, weren't they?
> Shit. Alright folks let's remove these images from the internet. Call Beyoncé's people, let's get this done.
> I'm not quite sure you understand how the internet works.
Great job, /r/OnOff moderator. As if the posters in /r/gonewild needed yet another reason to stay the hell away from this website.
I doubt there's any copyright claim here, as I would imagine there's some fair use case to be made on behalf of /r/OnOff. But the women who post to /r/gonewild are giving you free porn at no small personal risk to themselves. The least you could do is respect their wishes.
>As if the posters in /r/gonewild needed yet another reason to stay the hell away from this website.
Do you really think this is going to stop them?
This single incident? Of course not. But /r/gonewild enjoys a certain sort of reputation that makes women feel more comfortable about posting there. It has some of the most strict moderation on the entire website and the subscribers have generally learned to behave themselves. Every little thing that chips away at that sub's reputation as a place where casual, everyday women can safely get naked in front of strangers on the internet brings us closer to the time that sub becomes a garbage bin.
My point here is, 1) don't bite the hand that feeds you and 2) show a little respect for people who are literally putting it all out there for your benefit. If she doesn't want it posted in /r/OnOff, what's the harm in obliging her?
You're right, but on the same side of the coin, the moderation of /r/OnOff is not the moderation of /r/Gonewild, and the moderation of both are not responsible for what users do outside of the subreddit.
Take comfort that the user that posted it offered to take it down.
> 2) show a little respect for people who are literally putting it all out there for your benefit.
To be fair, both the posters and the viewers benefit from r/gonewild.
fair use doesn't exactly mean what you think it means
I don't pretend to understand the finer nuances of copyright law, but I don't need to pass the bar exam to understand that if that wasn't fair use of those images, then most the rest of the content which gets linked from this website would also be some sort of copyright violation.
My comment about fair use was meant to preempt that from being a point of debate, because while I don't personally think it's in dispute, that's usually the first thing a lot of people argue in cases like this.
>then most the rest of the content which gets linked from this website would also be some sort of copyright violation.
Yes and if the rights holders wanted to make an issue of it they could. Most don't however because it can be rather time consuming.
Doesn't everyone understand that if we're nice to people who post their boobs on the internet there will be more boobs on the internet?
Not masochists though. You gotta be mean to them to get anything out of 'em.
Hmm? The mod tells her exactly how to remove them. Deleting the post isn't going to do shit.
I'm going to jump to the copyright thing here for a second because you're correct about the result (she can't exercise a copyright claim) but for the wrong reason.
It's not a fair use argument by any stretch. I can go through the steps, but the most fundamental reason is because the reason for the repost (the argued infringing use) is the same as the initial post (the copyrighted work): to showcase her breasts for people to masturbate to.
So, let's talk about why her copyright claim wouldn't go anywhere.
When she posted this to imgur, and then to reddit, she would have agreed to a license (technically she agreed when she registered with reddit) which basically says "anything you post, we have a license to use."
This is important because posting the link to the imgur page is not itself an infringement. And Imgur can show the link to anyone who wants to see it because, as stated, they have that nifty license.
Thank you. I figured there was someone in here who knew what they were talking about. At least you sound like you do.
SnapShots: 1, 2, ^Readability
^I ^FINALLY ^FIXED ^THE ^READABILITY ^LINKS!
SnapShot
(Mirror | open source | create your own snapshots)
>Silly whore, we're entitled to display your body wherever we want!
You forgot the "/s".
> There are shitty people on the internet, therefore we literally cannot be not shitty. It's, like, the rules of the internet.
How about not being shitty because it's not shitty.
It sort of reminds me of the rare religious person that you see who says "But if we don't have the Bible to tell us what to do, then what's to stop me from killing people?"
It's a bit chilling to find people who only care about other people when there are explicit rules requiring you to do so.
I agree that it would be polite to take the post down, but OP should really take this as a lesson in how posting pictures works. Once it's out there, it's out there and you've lost your ability to control it. Forever.
Don't bite the titty that feeds you, guys
Unless she's into that sort of thing.
she didnt allow it and she didnt stop it. sounds to me like she is in the habit of not doing things
Posts like this are a great example of how little reddit on the whole knows about IP rights There are bloggers out there that have had judgements brought against them for thousands of dollars because they grabbed a pic at random from the internet. Not to say that will happen here but there are far more protections for your content on the internet then people realize.
I get your point, but do you think that a woman who is taking the precautions to exclude her face from nude photos she's posting to the internet is going to take this to court?
Was I not clear on that in my last sentence?
You were, I was just making sure you were following the proper protocols.
ZippityZoppity
Head Chair
Department of Redundancy Department
But that's because they were using the image on their blog. Not the same as posting an image on a public forum.
doesn't matter
Would cross-posting within the same website that originally had the post be such a violation? I feel like it would be hard to prosecute such a thing.
It has been a while since I look over Reddit's tos but from what I remember places like Reddit, tumblr, flickr all have bits in their user agreements that allow other members of the site to repost, reblog, reshare content you post. Afterall they would not be able to function with out it.
The problem comes when people rehost the material outside of control of the original creator.
If we're going to play lawyers on the internet here, let's parse this out. The image was posted to imgur, it was only linked from reddit. Wouldn't that mean that imgur's TOS is the one that applies?